A letter-writer probes the ‘hijab incident’ and others weigh in on civil discourse in politics. You can write to us (civilly) at: letters@ottawacitizen.com

—

Threats, but not necessarily ‘hate’

Re: Hijabs, hoaxes and hate crimes, Jan . 17.

Aisha Sherazi recounts the experience of a brother and sister, both Muslim, who were accosted on the way to school by a menacing stranger. Among other things, he told them to “go back to their country.” The brother, heroic in his responsibility, exemplary in his good common sense, directed his sister to go ahead to school while he went to the nearest door and enlisted help. As I was the “kind gentleman” who answered that morning, I may have some light to shine on the matter.

The fellow who stopped the children that day was not motivated by hate, necessarily – at least not hatred of Muslims. He was living in a rooming domicile on our street but has since moved away and is no longer a threat to any children walking to school. He was, however, mentally or otherwise disturbed, and unquestionably threatening; on another occasion he followed my wife and teenaged daughter and muttered that he “could smell their fear.” So the man was a lunatic, but not a hate criminal.

Why did the Muslim girl in Toronto tell the tale of a man trying to cut her hijab? Because she’s 11. Perhaps she removed it herself to impress her friends, but fearing a strong rebuke for her actions at home, decided to concoct an alternate story. The grade 5 boy who plays at recess without his toque, is spotted by a passing parent and queried at home about it, might say, “I lost it” or, worse, “Somebody took it.” How like any Canadian child.

The hijab distinguishes the Muslim woman. The young man, Omar, who came to my door that morning, was distinguishable only by his maturity and respectfulness. I don’t know Muslim tradition from Adam, but to meet this young man, or to hear the boisterous and joyful sounds of children at play coming from the Abrarr school across the street, would suggest a hard-working and earnest people. A Canadian people.

Let’s not make everything hateful. Let’s exercise some common sense. Were a Senators fan to wear his colours in Toronto, would the teasing be a “hate crime”? Let’s not invite trouble; not everything is based in religion.

Peter Boyle, Ottawa

Bravo to Brigitte Pellerin

Re: Keeping political debate civil: These people just did, Jan. 18.

That was an excellent series by Brigitte Pellerin – a true oasis of civil discussion and expression in the desert of online politics. I think she is absolutely right in concluding that in-person discussion really is the way to go if we want to hear each other and incorporate different opinions.

I read a great analogy to this problem: We often hear about “road rage” but almost never about “walker rage,” for the simple reason that a car anonymizes and dehumanizes people, whereas when you are walking in a crowded street and someone bumps into you or steps on your toe, you can see if it was not deliberate and they almost always look you in the eye and say, “Oh sorry!”

Thank you again for the thoughtful articles.

Peter Rudin-Brown, Ottawa

A window into meaningful debate

I am 75, with political views that span the right/left divide, and have often found it difficult to have meaningful political discussions outside a narrow range of friends and family. Brigitte Pellerin’s column gives me a window on that discussion that I found both useful and heartening, and I thank her for that.

This work is important, so please keep it up. These columns can provide meat for more expansive discussions. Kudos.

Ken Wilson, Kanata

Let’s avoid shaming and labelling

So Brigitte Pellerin wants to encourage polite discourse in political discussions. Great. I should like to propose the first rule: Never shame or label anybody or opinion.